...Allusions of Horatio Hornblower and James Kirk...

     "A screen had been hurriedly run across the after part of the frigate, and the table and chairs replaced.  The brigadier [of the Spanish ship] sipped with increasing and astonished appreciation at the glass of wine offered him.  Inevitably several minutes passed in desultory conversation - Spanish was the one language the three had in common - before the brigadier began to discuss business.
     'You have a beautiful ship here, milord,' he said.  'I regret much to find you in company with a pirate.'
     'You mean the Bride of Abydos, señor?'
     'Naturally, milord.'
     Hornblower saw a trap opening before him.
     'You call her a pirate, señor?'
     'What do you call her, milord?"
     'I am waiting to hear your opinion, señor.'  It was important not to commit himself.
     'Her actions call for explanation, milord.  She has captured and plundered a Dutch ship.  That can be interpreted as an act of piracy.  On the other hand it might be said she is operating under a so-called commission issued by the rebels in Venezuela.  In the one case Captain Van der Maesen will seize her as a pirate.  On the other, if she is a privateer, I will seize her as an enemy of my country.'
     'In neither case, señor  has a court of law determined her status.  In the meanwhile, gentlemen, she is in my possession.'
     Hats were in the ring now.  Hornblower met the eyes of the others with the least expression he could manage.  Of one thing he was certain, that whatever might be eventually decided regarding the Bride of Abydos neither the British government nor the British public would approve of his tamely allowing her to be taken out of his hands."
     - Admiral Hornblower in the West Indies, 1958, page 180

     There are few genres that play into the minds of young men better than those of sea-faring adventures.  They can be of heroes or scoundrels - either way, the milieu of the sea, of wood, rope and the bare essentials that pushed men and ships to the edges of the world.  A boy can start with adventures in a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure or Boxcar Children, on to Stevenson's engaging series, then move on to a Frank Yerby or C.S. Forester novel.
     With punctuated reading through Forester's novel last night, a passage which I came across (above) struck me with parallels to Star Trek and its captain.  Doing a quick Google search and sure enough, Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Trek, cites that the original pitch for the series was based upon Forester's hero.  [As Hornblower was an amalgam of historical heroes, Lord Horatio Nelson and Lord Cochrane.]  Trek, in effect, was 'Hornblower in the stars'.
     And, in many of these gun-ship novels, the high art of warfare, of honor, and the strategies and hard truths that were required of these men are those that Kirk must face some thousand years later aboard his ship.  A captain would put faith in his crew, put them at risk and drive them to the brinks of exertion to fulfill the mission.  The ship was the world: you literally would live or die by its success or failure.  If you look at the statistical survival of such ships, the latter was the most likely.

     This is why a capable commander was required, a Renaissance man of sorts.  He was surely schooled, but had to have a functionary knowledge of a ship and how all the men and their tasks interwove to make it run.  Navigation, thus astronomy, arithmetic, etc. was absolutely required.  A function of the times was that he would have definite working knowledge of all of the mechanical processes aboard the ship.  He relied upon a crew of his choosing.  The other men must be exemplary in their fields.  The medic, the smithy, the sails-master, the cook - they all were integral to a well-run operation.
     Apart from Hornblower in contrast, Star Trek's dependence on the first- and second-mates relationship with the captain plays a much larger role than the Forester novels.  Hornblower's command has an interchangeable crew of coxswains and mates - which was, as far as I can tell with my knowledge only derived from a breadth of fictional accounts, probably closer to the reality of that time.  I would find it difficult to believe that, even in the world of Trek, that first to third-mates in a crew would stay their entire career with a single captain.  After first blush, I think the reality is Spock would have left many missions prior to that - it would reflect the nature course of ship exploration or warfare.
     Friendships would remain and evolve, surely - but all of Kirk's crew would be radically different in three to five year increments.  It is necessary for a healthy interplay across Starfleet as it would be in the modern Navy.
     What is consistent with the novels based upon the 'golden age of ships', is that the ships of the line were known, spoken about, characteristics maintained in the mind as modern day sports enthusiasts would with their favored team.  Rear Admirals must have kept close count on the 'technologies' (I'm sure the word 'strengths' was used) between nations and any and all advantages provided a full rigged ship.  Captains of the sea and their ships were spoken by government officials and the people's that relied upon their efficacy for survival.  Forester's take (as well as Yerby, slightly less (to me) of Stevenson) sees this microcosm as essential to the "exceptionalism" of his titular hero.
     If you get deeper into the Trek novelizations, where there is more time to explore the parallels: Trek offers this concept, which would have been too much minutiae for television and film.  Instead, Roddenberry offers a much less realistic viewpoint to concentrate on the singular set of characters across time.  It assuredly has its place (and popularity) - although it would be much more spirited to see changes that would make Kirk develop much differently over time.  It doesn't necessarily make for entertaining television - but it would make for an interesting one (Doctor Who anyone?).